What is it that makes a rich persons "right" to keep their surplus triumph a poor persons right to medical care/food/other-social-benefit?

Who says you have a right to medical care/food/other social benefit? And who gets to decide what is a "surplus"?

As I said, true "rights" don't require the usurping of another's "rights". What you're speaking of are "entitlements". Forcibly taking from one to give to another. That is nothing less than the "ends justify the means" argument, and that has been the argument of tyrants throughout history.

Quote

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- The Rt Hon. William Pitt,the Younger

The thing that strikes me as most significant about all socialist types in developed countries is that they are utter hypocrites. Their are plenty of people in this world poorer than they are; and by the socialist way of thinking, those poor have a "right" to all the first-world socialists "surplus". And yet somehow they haven't downsized their house, they still drive around in expensive cars, they still find time and money to have children, buy computers and broadband services, and bitch about rich people on the Internet. They claim to believe in socialism, and yet they have failed to buy communal property, have failed to open communal bank accounts, and have failed to pay all their "surplus" to the tax office (who will happily accept over and above the required proportion).

My political views might be abhorrent to you, but at least they are self-consistent.

If I were left the 50% of my income that is forcibly taken from me and my wife each year, I could purchase all the services supposedly provided to me for the government, more efficiently and better than they are now. I would also be in a considerably better position to direct my excess income to more charitable purposes, with those charities doing far better work because they would have to compete for my money.

Perhaps this is all a fantasy, but given the abject failure of the current socialist methodology, what possible argument is their against giving it a try?

Contradicting unspy's theory, the PSD program isn't about "give aways", actually is one of the harsh programs. People isn't any longer buying "easy promises" that end up naturally void and under overwhelming debt.

Who says you have a right to medical care/food/other social benefit? And who gets to decide what is a "surplus"?

As I said, true "rights" don't require the usurping of another's "rights". What you're speaking of are "entitlements". Forcibly taking from one to give to another. That is nothing less than the "ends justify the means" argument, and that has been the argument of tyrants throughout history.

Ok, let's call it entitlements instead. What's entitles a rich person to keep all his riches while a poor person isn't entitled to food for the day? Both being part of a community/society, I think it's fair that the community/society gets to decide. Through chosen flavour of democracy.Sometimes the ends justifies the means. The world is a complex place. Or are you saying that it never does?

Quote

The thing that strikes me as most significant about all socialist types in developed countries is that they are utter hypocrites. Their are plenty of people in this world poorer than they are; and by the socialist way of thinking, those poor have a "right" to all the first-world socialists "surplus". And yet somehow they haven't downsized their house, they still drive around in expensive cars, they still find time and money to have children, buy computers and broadband services, and bitch about rich people on the Internet. They claim to believe in socialism, and yet they have failed to buy communal property, have failed to open communal bank accounts, and have failed to pay all their "surplus" to the tax office (who will happily accept over and above the required proportion).

Being socialist isnt' the same as being naive. One person can't save the world. I think most socialists would say that we should make the world better together.

Quote

My political views might be abhorrent to you, but at least they are self-consistent.

I must admit it has a certain elegance to it.

Quote

If I were left the 50% of my income that is forcibly taken from me and my wife each year, I could purchase all the services supposedly provided to me for the government, more efficiently and better than they are now. I would also be in a considerably better position to direct my excess income to more charitable purposes, with those charities doing far better work because they would have to compete for my money.

Perhaps this is all a fantasy, but given the abject failure of the current socialist methodology, what possible argument is their against giving it a try?

There are many services that you use that you use that you never think about, and probably would never think to pay for, yet are essential for you and/or the community you live in. Perhaps you could do it better, perhaps not. It's hard to know.

Third generation of entire families on welfare.Number of employed people: 23millionNumber of unemployed people: 2.5mNumber of people who have never worked a single day: 1.5mNumber of young people who have never worked a single day: 600,000

It doesn't take a genius to see that the trend is to a larger and larger unemployed base.

There are 23m people employed on a population of 62m. Those 23m must be supplying enough wealth creation each year (and I'm being generous and not subtracting the public sector) to keep themselves and the remaining 39m in sweeties.

Proportion of UK GDP that is government spending: 52%. Have a think about what it means when the government is spending more than 50% of the total wealth generated by the country.

Then add in the fact that they are then borrowing on top of that 52%. More bizarre: with complaints at the severity of government cuts from all quarters, spending and borrowing are higher now than they have ever been.

The UK is not alone in having figures like this. None of which are sustainable. They weren't even sustainable when the economy was in good shape. Disaster is coming, and it is only the socialists who think the answer is to spend more and more of other people's money. The top 1% of earners in the UK supply 25% of the tax revenue; the top 10% supply 50% of total tax revenue and the answer is to tax them more? Fantasy land.

Adam Smith pointed out nearly 300 years ago that (in aggregate) no man can consume more than he produces. Over the next few years the western world is going to have a practical reminder of this lesson.

We have more debt, less education, worse health, less freedom and lower social mobility than before the socialists got control of the chequebook. By which criteria would this not be counted as a failure?

Uffff... if nothing is done UK is long term screwed realnowhereman and most of Europe along with it.UK used to have a rigorous education system which proved to be efficient, now has a wreck of it but, the worse part, even turned into a wreck it is still taken as an "example to follow" due to the education of British elder generations.I recall a debate around to set whether students may flunk due to poor performance, the argument of the socialist Education Minister at the time was that "in UK they found it to be counter-productive, may cause traumas (trauma of dumbness?!) and still without flunks UK has high qualified workers"...

What she forgot is that you'll only see the results of education (or poor education) policies a few years after those policies are set, as the "flunk-less" students will not enter the labor market next year, and most likely not within the next 5 years or more.Maybe in the next 10 years nobody will take UK as a standard for education anymore, but for now it's doing some damage.

Other than that is the immigration. There're several kinds of immigration and not all of them are bad, but lately Europe is experiencing too much of parasite-immigration to flood welfare expecting to get free meals.

Still this detours from Democracy. As always there're folks pretty happy expecting the next "Socialist/Communist/Leftist-parrot-promiser" to go pay his lunch, and others not so happy who knows that will pay those folks' open buffet. Within a realist population, isn't expected to see a major rise of those "free meals give aways"... even if they show up for a while, even most of them will come to realize that the system will not work that way.

U americans fear your government so its all about thinning it. In europe government fear the people, and every couple centuries we hang our leaders by the thumbs to make them remember who's the boss and rebuild. I think what we are seeing is the beginning of that. And i think you americans should wake up and show your government who they should serve. In a social pyramid, when the low layers move, the top crashes down.

The people who think all is lost. I like to picture them like the farmer in the feudal ages lowering their heads. But there was hope then and theres hope still.

We have more debt, less education, worse health, less freedom and lower social mobility than before the socialists got control of the chequebook. By which criteria would this not be counted as a failure?

While I don't doubt your numbers I fail to see what socialism has to do with it. It seems that it has more to do with a lack of financial responsibility, which is common everywhere. Greece, Italy and Ireland were controlled by the right and still managed to screw up royally, while socialist Norway have a very good track record of keeping its finances in order. I do believe that Norway is the only European country that has financed it's pensions, despite several attempts to use the oil funds to pay for other things.Meanwhile I think it's the socialists who are spearheading Greek return to fiscal responsibility.

Now I don't think that it has anything to do with being socialist, conservative or libertarian, or what have you. I think that certain people are responsible and some are not.Clinton was responsible and even tried to make a law that all tax cuts had to be financed before they could be implemented. Bush, not so much. Obama, well, not sure really.

We have more debt, less education, worse health, less freedom and lower social mobility than before the socialists got control of the chequebook. By which criteria would this not be counted as a failure?

While I don't doubt your numbers I fail to see what socialism has to do with it. It seems that it has more to do with a lack of financial responsibility, which is common everywhere. Greece, Italy and Ireland were controlled by the right and still managed to screw up royally, while socialist Norway have a very good

Financial irresponsibility and socialism go hand in hand.

Whatever the parties in these countries said they were, they certainly did not behave in a right wing manner. They all have large public sectors, with huge benefits, massive pensions, and early retirement ages.

Just as in the UK: currently the "right wing" party is in power; and yet is spending at a higher rate than their "left wing" predecessors.

Quote

track record of keeping its finances in order. I do believe that Norway is the only European country that has financed it's pensions, despite several attempts to use the oil funds to pay for other things.Meanwhile I think it's the socialists who are spearheading Greek return to fiscal responsibility.

Just as the "right" politicians can behave in a "left" manner; the converse is true. I suspect that it is more the case that the opposition simply disagrees with everything the incumbants do.

Again: in the UK the opposition now pop up regularly arguing against policies they themselves had announced before the election. Once in power there is no difference between right or left.

Quote

Now I don't think that it has anything to do with being socialist, conservative or libertarian, or what have you. I think that certain people are responsible and some are not.Clinton was responsible and even tried to make a law that all tax cuts had to be financed before they could be implemented. Bush, not so much. Obama, well, not sure really.

I don't disagree that financial irresponsibility is more important. But most financial irresponsibility is done in the name of socialist policies (even by right wing politicians). Taking money from the productive and giving it to the unproductive is socialist. It's not that I am uncaring, it is that I believe those who are helped with free gifts are actually weakened, our modern welfare states have become not a safety net, but a harness. Rather than being cushioned from a fall, welfare aims to ensure people cannot fall. That is a recipe for creating a population who can't walk the high wire.

As I have said though, there is no significant difference between the actions of current politicians and their opponents. Let's say I travelled back in time to before the election and told you that the winner of the American presidency would have allowed American citizens to be murdered by the state, increased surveillance, kept Gitmo open, given huge tax cuts to the wealthy, and started a new war in Libya. Would you then conclude that (a) John McCain was going to win (b) Barrack Obama was going to win?

George Bush increased the size of government massively. That doesn't sound right wing to me.

On the subject of Clinton: it is arguable that he is responsible for the financial crisis, since it was he who set up the scheme were banks were forced to lend to people that they otherwise wouldn't have (i.e. people who couldn't afford the payments), often called "sub-prime" borrowers. It's well known that house prices will expand to take the credit offered to the buyers. Should we be shocked then that house prices shot up as more credit was offered? Should we then be shocked when the ever increasing house prices formed a bubble that made the payments unsustainable?

What is it that makes a rich persons "right" to keep their surplus triumph a poor persons right to medical care/food/other-social-benefit?

The difference is that there is no violence involved in the 'rich' keeping what they have earned. Giving the 'poor' free medical coverage requires forcibly taking, with threat of violence, something from other people.

But really, why do socialist types always insist that medical care, education etc. be paid for through taxes? Since the unions have a lock on the education and healthcare industries, why don't they simply tell their membership to provide these services for 'free' to the poor?

Since unionized teachers and other workers seem to vote Democrat/Socialist in strong numbers, they surely won't object.

«there is no violence involved»... "violence" has many forms.If a corporate owner is so eager to keep his "richness" that puts all the folks around starving, that's a form of violence and then I'm pro that that guy to be hang, beaten, whatever... or just have him paying taxes; maybe the last option is the less violent one.Also you need "violence" to keep your property, otherwise someone would just come to you, kick you and get all he cans... or you kick him to remain with your belongings.

This is a world of violence. All that "non-violence" BS is so of narrow view! If we can do it that less brutality, that's already good enough.

«there is no violence involved»... "violence" has many forms.If a corporate owner is so eager to keep his "richness" that puts all the folks around starving, that's a form of violence and then I'm pro that that guy to be hang, beaten, whatever... or just have him paying taxes; maybe the last option is the less violent one.Also you need "violence" to keep your property, otherwise someone would just come to you, kick you and get all he cans... or you kick him to remain with your belongings.

You make the argument as if being rich just happens. A great many rich people earned their money. To earn money you have to provide something that someone else is willing to pay for. Therefore when you murder the rich person for being rich, you deprive all those future customers of that which the rich person would have supplied.

Killing that rich person and distributing his money makes a few people marginally richer for a short time, but makes them all a lot poorer for the rest of time.

Now, I'm not saying that all rich people are paragons of virtue, and a great many of them remain rich or got rich by rubbing shoulders with (or becoming) politicians and having laws made to protect their income. If you want to murder them... I'm fine with that. But it is the corruption that makes them contemptible, not their wealth.

Also: you aren't really suggesting that being willing to do violence in defence of your own property and life is morally equivalent to being willing to do violence to take another's property or life? As that's going to be a lonely limb to be out on.

Morality, morality... you intend to show your morality to a burglar while he's beating you up? Or rather show a "9mm moralizer"?

There're many ways to become rich as well to become poor, not all of them are either legit, hard, paragons of virtue... nor also all of rich are jackboots, but for those who are, things have to go the hard way.The market doesn't work on "supply and demand". Unless you're selling carrots, where you've the nag of not selling it and it get rotten, for many things you may hold while you can, as it doesn't expire. So some folks with more deep pockets can leave a community to the ground expecting to get them cheaper... those are using wealth as a weapon and thereby I really don't care about what that community does to them.

«there is no violence involved»... "violence" has many forms.If a corporate owner is so eager to keep his "richness" that puts all the folks around starving, that's a form of violence and then I'm pro that that guy to be hang, beaten, whatever... or just have him paying taxes; maybe the last option is the less violent one.Also you need "violence" to keep your property, otherwise someone would just come to you, kick you and get all he cans... or you kick him to remain with your belongings.

This is a world of violence. All that "non-violence" BS is so of narrow view! If we can do it that less brutality, that's already good enough.

(BTW, your profile pic is violent)

If you're just going to make up your own definitions for words then there's really no point in having a discussion. You seem to think a so-called rich person who doesn't give away his stuff is being 'violent'. Well then I guess the world is full of "violence". If we're going to redefine violence we might as well redefine 'poverty' and 'wealth'. Oh wait, that's already been done too.

And where is this place where "all the folks around starving"? No socialist politician in Europe or North America is talking about feeding the starving. They are talking about taking from the working and giving to the fattest 'poor' people in the world. In fact they exacerbate the real poverty in other countries by erecting trade barriers. They don't seem to care about the truly poor, just their own constituencies.

Don't know why you keep saying "the socialists", as the "social state" is also a flag of social-democrats, christian-democrats and many other right-wing factions...But yes, you're right about a few things, probably you should however take "the rich" out of the picture, as the social state, as it is, is stealing way more the middle class than the rich.

There are no socialists in europe or america period. In the countries which have a socialist leader, like they had in Portugal or in Spain, government has just taken the same right wing approach as the rest of europe: fuck the working class to save the elites asses.

The thing about violence. There is no need for violence to redistribute wealth. I'm not saying we should do it, but government just has to pass a law and change bank account's owners, see, no violence.

What i think BCEmporium is trying to say that keeping people starving to death and poor is just as bad as "stealing the rich" if not more. Maybe its not violence but you can attack people indirectly if you don't let them develop.

There are no socialists in europe or america period. In the countries which have a socialist leader, like they had in Portugal or in Spain, government has just taken the same right wing approach as the rest of europe: fuck the working class to save the elites asses.

The thing about violence. There is no need for violence to redistribute wealth. I'm not saying we should do it, but government just has to pass a law and change bank account's owners, see, no violence.

What i think BCEmporium is trying to say that keeping people starving to death and poor is just as bad as "stealing the rich" if not more. Maybe its not violence but you can attack people indirectly if you don't let them develop.

I really hope you are stretching "working class" to include white-collar people too...

I am quite tired of people saying the right-wing is only screwing the working class, when I see approaches of taking stuff from white-collar people to give to poor (while allowing the rich, specially bankers, to become more rich...)

If you're just going to make up your own definitions for words then there's really no point in having a discussion.

You mean like how the libertarians and ACists have redefined the words "violence", "force", and "aggression"? (Hint: If I snatch your coat off the coat rack while you're dining in a fancy restaurant, I have not used force against you, my act was non-violent, and I have not aggressed against you.)

If you're just going to make up your own definitions for words then there's really no point in having a discussion.

You mean like how the libertarians and ACists have redefined the words "violence", "force", and "aggression"? (Hint: If I snatch your coat off the coat rack while you're dining in a fancy restaurant, I have not used force against you, my act was non-violent, and I have not aggressed against you.)

No, but you have aggressed against the establishment, who was under an implicit agreement to secure my coat. Once you steal it, he is then responsible to me for my loss.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

If you're just going to make up your own definitions for words then there's really no point in having a discussion.

You mean like how the libertarians and ACists have redefined the words "violence", "force", and "aggression"? (Hint: If I snatch your coat off the coat rack while you're dining in a fancy restaurant, I have not used force against you, my act was non-violent, and I have not aggressed against you.)

No, but you have aggressed against the establishment, who was under an implicit agreement to secure my coat. Once you steal it, he is then responsible to me for my loss.

If you're just going to make up your own definitions for words then there's really no point in having a discussion.

You mean like how the libertarians and ACists have redefined the words "violence", "force", and "aggression"? (Hint: If I snatch your coat off the coat rack while you're dining in a fancy restaurant, I have not used force against you, my act was non-violent, and I have not aggressed against you.)

Actually that is called "theft".Violence, or more exactly the threat of violence, is what the government uses to take your coat and give it to somebody else.